Lloyds Pharmacy Ltd, Re Judicial Review [2010] ScotCS CSOH_22 (03 March 2010)

Lloyds Pharmacy Ltd, Re Judicial Review [2010] ScotCS CSOH_22 (03 March 2010)

The Panel erred in law by failing to address whether the absence of a pharmacy at the new health centre, to which all GP practices had relocated, rendered the existing pharmaceutical provision in the neighbourhood inadequate. The Panel's focus solely on accessibility of existing pharmacies missed the central issue of the application. The decision was therefore unlawful and must be quashed.

Citation
[2010] ScotCS CSOH_22
Parties
Petitioner: Lloyds Pharmacy Limited; First Respondent: National Appeal Panel for Entry to the Pharmaceutical Lists; Second Respondent: Highland Health Board; Interested Party: Boots the Chemist Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
03 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Opinion of the Court (first Instance)
Outcome
Application for judicial review granted; Panel's decision quashed.
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Pharmaceutical Services, Adequacy of Service Provision, Statutory Interpretation
Administrative Law Health Law Judicial Review Pharmaceutical Services Adequacy of Service Provision Statutory Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lloyds Pharmacy Limited

Petitioner

National Appeal Panel for Entry to the Pharmaceutical Lists

First Respondent

Highland Health Board

Second Respondent

Boots the Chemist Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Opinion of the Court (first Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the National Appeal Panel erred in law by failing to consider if the absence of a pharmacy at the new health centre rendered pharmaceutical provision in the neighbourhood inadequate under the relevant regulations.
  2. 2 Whether the Panel's approach to the statutory test for adequacy was correct.

Ratio Decidendi

The Panel erred in law by failing to address whether the absence of a pharmacy at the new health centre, to which all GP practices had relocated, rendered the existing pharmaceutical provision in the neighbourhood inadequate. The Panel's focus solely on accessibility of existing pharmacies missed the central issue of the application. The decision was therefore unlawful and must be quashed.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review granted; Panel's decision quashed.

Orders

  • The decision of the National Appeal Panel is quashed.
  • A new Panel is to be constituted to determine the petitioners' appeal.